Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Finite element simulation of soil failure patterns under soil bin and
eld testing conditions
A.A. Tagar a,b , Ji Changying a, *, Jan Adamowski c, Julien Malard c , Chen Shi Qi a ,
Ding Qishuo a , N.A. Abbasi c
a
b
c

College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, PR China

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 70060, Pakistan
Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec H9X3V9, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 5 December 2013
Received in revised form 30 August 2014
Accepted 1 September 2014

Finite element modeling (FEM) of soil physical behavior can provide information which is difcult or
impossible to obtain experimentally. This method has been applied by many researchers to study soil
compaction, acting forces on tools, stress distribution in soils and soil failure patterns. The great majority
of studies that have investigated soil failure patterns have been limited to in-laboratory soil bins, with
few tests being done under eld conditions. However, it is difcult to simulate actual soil conditions in a
soil bin. This study used FEM for the simulation of the soil failure patterns as linked to consistency limits
and sticky point of soil, comparing the simulation results with soil failure patterns observed in the soil bin
and in the eld. Results showed that FEM is a useful tool to simulate soil failure patterns; however,
simulation models correlated better with soil bin than with eld test results. The results also showed the
presence of a direct relationship between soil failure patterns and the consistency limits of the soil, both
in the soil bin and in the eld. However, soil bin results were not satisfactorily veried in the eld, in
particular as the failure patterns were also found to be affected by the roots of the stubbles in the eld. It
is concluded that FEM can provide accurate simulation of soil failure patterns under soil bin test
conditions, but that soil bin results did not satisfactorily represent results from the eld.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Consistency limits
Finite element method
Sticky point
Soil physical and mechanical properties
Paddy soil

1. Introduction
Numerical methods are helpful in understanding and describing soil cutting processes and soiltool interactions. Karmakar and
Kushwaha (2006) identied three numerical methods to model the
soil cutting process, namely the nite element method (FEM), the
discrete element method (DEM) and computational uid dynamics
(CFD). The discrete element method (DEM) is based on a promising
approach for constructing a high-delity model to describe the
soil-tillage tool interaction (Shmulevich, 2010). However, the
determination of model parameters to control the soil void ratio
and the shape of particles, as well as the modeling of breakage and
the formation of aggregates of varying sizes and shapes, remain
signicant challenges and limit the application of DEM for practical
engineering problems (Abo Al-Kheer et al., 2011b). Computational
uid dynamics (CFD) can be used to model soiltool interactions
(Karmakar and Kushwaha, 2006). Soil dynamic behavior using the
CFD simulation will help in tool design and its optimization with

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13914706344.

E-mail address: ahmed_ali_tagar@hotmail.com (A.A. Tagar).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.09.006
0167-1987/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

different shapes in order to reduce tool draft and energy demand

over a wide speed range, and help model different types of soils
based on their visco-plastic parameters. However, further research
is needed before CFD can be used to model soiltool interactions
with condence (Coetzee and Els, 2009). On the other hand, the
nite element method (FEM) has been used by many researchers in
order to design tillage tools and to investigate the interaction
between soil and tillage implements. FEM can be used to study soil
compaction, acting forces on tools, stress distribution in soil and
soil failure patterns (Raper and Erbach, 1990; Aluko and Chandler,
2004; Shahab Davoudi et al., 2008); however the continuity
assumption in FEM does not allow crack propagation in soil (Jafari
et al., 2006). Coleman and Perumpral (1974) pointed out that in soil
mechanics research, the FEM method is capable of providing
information which is difcult or impossible to obtain experimentally. Later, Yong and Hanna (1977) modeled soil cutting by simple
plane (two-dimensional) blades, and Liu Yan and HouZhi-Min
(1985) and Chi and Kushwaha (1987, 1989) applied FEM to the
study of three-dimensional soil cutting with narrow blades. FEM is
also appropriate for the analysis of soil cutting problems where
shear failure with signicant plastic deformation occurs (Aluko,
2008).

158

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

The performance of agricultural implements and the resulting

soil tilth depend largely on the mechanical behavior of soils
(Rajaram and Erbach, 1998). Soil failure patterns are one of the
most important indices to assess the mechanical behavior of soils
under varied soil and tool conditions. Indeed, Abo Al-Kheer et al.,
(2011a) concluded that the variation in soil failure patterns can be
attributed to the wide variations in mechanical behavior of the soil.
Previous studies of soil cutting have identied six types of soil
failure patterns, namely collapse, brittle, chip-forming, bending,
ow and ow with considerable bending in different soil types
(Elijah and Weber, 1971; Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988; Rajaram
and Erbach, 1996; Tagar et al., 2014). Collapse failure, which occurs
in dry soils, involves the collapse of soil structure when a mass of a
soil in front of the tool is crushed (Rajaram, 1990) and is similar to
the shear plane-type failure as described by Elijah and Weber
(1971). Brittle failure occurs in moist soils due to the propagation of
tensile cracks (Chandler, 1984; Hatibu, 1987). Chip-forming failure,
or plastic type failure, occurs in wet unsaturated soil conditions
when the soil is removed in the form of chips similar to the chips
formed in metal cutting (Rajaram and Erbach, 1996; Rajaram and
Gee-Clough, 1988). Flow failure occurs in wet saturated soil
conditions due to the mere physical displacement of the soil
(Rajaram and Erbach, 1996), and bending failure is similar to ow
failure but also shows some strain in the vertical direction (Elijah
and Weber, 1971). Flow with considerable bending failure occurs at
the sticky point of soil and is similar to ow failure but with
considerable bending and no strains of elements (Tagar et al.,
2014).
Rajaram and Erbach (1996, 1998) concluded that, to better
understand tillage, research should be directed towards explaining
various soil failure patterns and the resulting physical property
changes. Indeed, Mamman and Oni (2005) carried out a study to
investigate the effect of draught on the performance of model
chisel furrowers. They concluded that there were no optimum
values of tool speed or tillage depth for which the draught of the
model tools were at a minimum. Therefore they suggested that the
choice of model tool should depend on soil failure pattern at
shallow depths, as well as on the size and quality of furrows
created at deeper depths. Numerous studies have been conducted
on soil failure patterns (e.g., Elijah and Weber, 1971; Stafford 1979a;
Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988; Wang and Gee-Clough, 1993;
Rajaram and Erbach, 1997, 1998, 1999; Aluko and Seig, 2000;
Makanga et al., 2010); however, despite this large number of

studies, a thorough understanding of soil failure patterns has not

yet been achieved.
Of the large number of studies having investigated soil failure
patterns, the vast majority have been limited to in-laboratory soil
bins, with only a few tests being done under eld conditions (e.g.,
Elijah and Weber, 1971; Hemmat et al., 2012). The justications for
soil bin studies include: better control of soil physical parameters
(Stafford, 1979b) and the setting of operation variables (Wegscheid
and Myers, 1967), as well as the possibility of replicating tests over
short periods, independent of weather (Barnes and Bockhop,
1960). However, it is difcult to simulate actual soil conditions in a
soil bin. This is consistent with Dexter and Bird (2001), who
concluded that the properties of disturbed (remolded) soil are not
appropriate for the prediction of the behavior of undisturbed soil in
the eld. Therefore, the verication of soil bin and laboratory
experiments under realistic eld conditions is always necessary
(McKyes and Desir, 1984). This is consistent with Liu et al. (2007),
who compared soil bin and eld experimental soils. Overall, while
soil bin study results may be extrapolated to the eld scale, a great
deal of caution must be taken, given the far greater soil
heterogeneity at the eld scale.
Although the importance of a better understanding of the true
failure patterns of soils has been emphasized by a number of
authors (e.g., Rajaram and Erbach, 1997, 1998; Mamman and Oni,
2005), the technical methods available to quantify soil failure
patterns are limited. For instance, Jayasuriya and Salokhe (2001)
concluded that the numerical value of the moisture content does
not show any direct relationship with changes in soil failure
patterns in different soils. Soil consistency limits could therefore be
hypothesized to show a much clearer relationship with soil failure
patterns than the simple numerical value of the moisture content,
though this has not been previously studied in great detail.
Although the study by Stafford (1979a) did indeed report the
plastic and liquid limits of the experimental soils, the experimental
soil moisture levels employed for testing unfortunately did not
correspond to any of these limits.
Thus, the authors of this paper carried out a previous study to
investigate soil failure patterns and draft as inuenced by the
consistency limits of the soil, and the results conrmed that there
does exist a direct relationship between these variables (see Tagar
et al., 2014). However, it is most important to verify the results in
realistic eld conditions. To date, most studies have focused on the
simulation of soil stresses, soil forces, soil deformation, and soil

Fig. 1. Finite element meshing of soil and cutting tools before tool operation.

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

159

Fig. 2. Finite element meshing of soil and cutting tools before tool operation.

displacement. Moreover, Gee-Clough et al. (1994) modeled soil

failure patterns in wet conditions (44% d.b.) using the nite
element method. However, no information is currently available on
the simulation of soil failure patterns observed at plastic
consistency and liquid consistency limits, as well as at the sticky
point of a soil. The objective of this study was therefore to
investigate the use of FEM for the simulation of soil failure patterns
as linked to consistency limits and the sticky point and to compare
the simulation results with the soil failure patterns observed in the
soil bin and in the eld.
2. Materials and methods
The laboratory experiments were carried out in an indoor soil
bin test rig developed at the Department of Agricultural
Mechanization, College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural
University (NJAU) (Tagar et al., 2014), while the eld experiments
were conducted at the Jiangpu Experimental Farm of Nanjing
Agricultural University, Jiangsu Province, PRC, (lat. 32
30 4.9600 N,
long. 118
360 38.7800 W). This region is generally hot and rainy in the
summer and cold and dry in the winter, with an average annual
temperature of 15.4
C, an average annual precipitation of
1200 mm and a daily mean relative humidity of 76% (Li and
Zhang, 2012). The top layer of soil (030 cm), which was used in the
soil bin and eld experiments, was composed of 50% sand, 24% clay
and 26% silt and was classied as sandy clay loam. The bottom layer
of soil (3160 cm) comprised of 54% sand, 18% clay and 28% silt and
was classied as sandy loam (yellowbrown soil according to the
Chinese Soil Taxonomy, and Halpudalf according to the US
classication scheme). This soil was used as paddy in a
ricewheat rotation on Nanjing Agricultural Universitys Jiangpu
Experimental Farm. The soil plastic limit (SMCpl,), liquid limit
(SMClq), and sticky point (SMCsp) were 32, 45 and 44%, respectively,
while the organic carbon content of the soil was 9.6 g kg1.

2.1. Numerical simulation

2.1.1. Modeling and meshing
Three-dimensional nite element models were developed
using the nite element software package Ansys/LS-Dyna explicit,
version 13. Soil molds (300 mm  100 mm  100 mm) and cutting
tool (150 mm  120 mm  4 mm) were drawn in Pro ENGINEER
(Pro E) and then imported into Ansys/LS-Dyna. The material
failure criterion was dened as eroding material. The convergence
criterion was the L2 norm control convergence, and the
convergence tolerance was 0.001 forces or moments. The soil
was considered an isotropic material and the cutting tool was
treated as a rigid body. Soil was modeled on the basis of the
DruckerPragers elastic-perfectly plastic material law. The
models were developed using 3D Solid Element 3D SOLID 164.
The contact between the soil mold and cutting tool was made by
surface to surface and eroding (ESTS). The meshing was done by
MAPPED for the soil and SWEEP for the tool. Figs. 1 and 2 show
nite element meshing of soil and tool models before and after
tool operation. The size of soil model was approximately
26,026 elements and 29,484 nodes and that of the cutting tool
model 1617 elements and 3400 nodes.
2.1.2. Boundary conditions and loading
As the model was symmetric, only one half of the soil and tool
models were simulated in order to save computing time. The tool
was modeled as a rigid body; therefore, all rotations DOF (degrees
of freedom) were constrained in the x and y-direction. The nodes of
the soil in the underside plane were constrained in all DOF; the
right plane was dened as a symmetry boundary plane. The other
planes were left free, without any constraints, so that the soil
particles could move in all directions. The tool was loaded with a
velocity of 10 mm s1 applied in the z-direction. The simulation
time step was 0.2 s.

Table 1
The main material properties of soil models and cutting tool model.
Parameter

Soil model

Cutting tool model

Moisture content (%)

Chip-forming failure
Bending failure
Flow failure
Flow with considerable bending

32
32
45
44

Bulk density (Mg m3)

1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3

Value
Elastic modulus
(Pa)

Poissons ratio

7.2  106
8.1 106
1.2  106
1.35  106
7.56  106

0.25
0.27
0.41
0.39
0.3

160

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170
Table 2
Other mechanical properties of soil used in the FEM simulation.
Property

Value

Specic gravity of soil used to obtain porosity, Spgrav

Density of water in model units, Rhowat
Viscoplasticity parameter, Vn
Viscoplasticity parameter, Gammar
Maximum number of plasticity iterations, Itermax
Initial bulk modulus or nonporous bulk modulus, K
Shear modulus (non-zero), G
Peak shear strength angle (friction angle) (radians), Phimax
Coefcient for modied DruckerPrager surface, Ahyp
Eccentricity parameter for third invariant effects, Eccen
Strain hardening percent of peak shear strength angle, An
Strain hardening amount of nonlinear effects, Et
Parameter for pore-water effects on bulk modulus, Pwd1
Skeleton bulk modulus, pore-water parameter, PwKsk
Parameter for pore-water effects on effective pressure, Pwd2
Minimum internal friction angle (radians), Phires
Volumetric strain at initial damage threshold, Dint
Void formation energy, Vdfm
Level of damage that will cause element deletion (0.01.0), Damlev
Maximum principal failure strain, Epsmax

2.79
1.0000E-3
1.1
0.0
10
1.260E + 3
3.600E + 2
1.436
2.1600E-1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6000E-7
7.2000E + 5
0.99
0.8

2.1.3. Soil and material properties

The input soil material properties, namely cohesion, friction,
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, were measured with a
standard triaxial compression apparatus. Youngs modulus was
calculated from the stressstrain (s 1  s3) curve at zero conning
pressure or uniaxial compression (s 2 = s 3 = 0) obtained from the
triaxial test using (Grote and Feldhusen, 2005):
E

100  Ds 1  s 3

De

(1)

where E is Youngs modulus (kPa), D(s 1  s3) is the change in

deviatoric pressure (kPa) and De is the change in elastic strain.
Poissons ratio was calculated as (Grote and Feldhusen, 2005):

e1R  e2R
(2)
e1A  e2A
Where e1R is the initial thickness of the specimen before the test
(mm), e2R is the thickness after the test (mm), e1A is the initial
length of the specimen before the test (mm), and e2A is the length
n

after the test (mm).

The values of dry bulk density for chip-forming failure,
bending failure, ow failure and ow with considerable bending

failure were obtained from experimental data. Soilmetal

interaction properties were obtained from the modied direct
shear box with a diameter of 61.0 mm and an area of 2920 mm2. In
this test, the lower half of the conventional direct shear box was
replaced by a piece of the same metal used to manufacture the
cutting tool, while soil was placed in the upper ring. The loads
(12.5 N, 15.62 N and 21.82 N) were applied to the soil in the upper
ring, whereas the bottom ring was moved horizontally. The shear
strength properties were then determined based on the Mohr
Coulomb criterion. The material properties for the tool were
obtained from MAT 147 (MAT_FHWA_SOIL) (Lewis, 2004), which
obeys the modied MohrCoulomb yield criterion. The main soil
and material properties are shown in Table 1 and other
mechanical properties used in the FEM simulation are shown
in Table 2.
2.2. Soil bin experiments
The soil molds were compacted to the ideal rdwb
(1.31.4 Mg m3) for sandy clay loam soil (USDA, 1999) and were
then transferred to the soil bin in the soil cutting test rig. The
cutting tool was then pushed through the soil mold at different

Fig. 3. Soil cutting test rig used in the eld.

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

161

Soil samples were taken from each subplot to determine the

existing moisture content, and a calculated (Eq. (1)) amount of
water was sprayed onto the subplots to bring the top 0.30 m of
topsoil to the required consistency limits and sticky point. The eld
was then allowed to equilibrate to uniform moisture content for
20 h before the soil failure tests. Soil samples were taken from
different locations of each subplot to ensure that the soil was
evenly wetted.

Fig. 4. Cutting tool used in the experiments.

angles in order to obtain the desired failure patterns. For a detailed

description of soil preparation and the soil cutting test rig, the
reader is referred to Tagar et al. (2014).
2.3. Field experiments
2.3.1. Preparation of test sites
Field conditions were quite heterogeneous (e.g., there were
standing stubble and roots of preceding crops, and crop residues
were present on the soil surface and mixed into the soil). To
compare soil bin experiments with eld experiments, the total
eld area was divided into ve blocks (one without stubble and
four with standing stubble (280 g m2)). To create the stubble-free
testing conditions, the preceding crops stubble (rice crop
(Wuyungen 23)) was removed using a lawn mower, though the
roots remained. Under the standing stubble condition, both the
stubble and roots were left undisturbed. Each of the blocks was
then divided into subplots (1.0  1.0 m2), to which the different
types of failure patterns were then applied in a randomized design.

2.3.2. Soil cutting test rig for the eld

In order to mimic soil bin experiments at the eld scale, a
manually operated soil cutting test rig was developed. It consisted
of a handle, iron cable, railings, and tool bearing and cutting tool
(Fig. 3). Two railings, 600 mm long, were constructed in parallel,
and were joined through steel plates (400 mm  90 mm  5 mm),
two at the bottom and one at the head. The tool bearing along with
cutting tool and steel sheets on the left and right sides were similar
to those of the soil cutting test rig for the soil bin. These were
mounted on the railings and joined by a steel plate
(400 mm  90 mm  5 mm). A square box (100 mm  50 mm) with
a movable handle was xed at the center of the steel plates. A cable
rope (operated by hand), instead of a hydraulic system, was
attached to the movable handle and tool bearing to pull the cutting
tool in a forward direction to cut the soil, and in a backward
direction to return it to the original position. For each cutting, the
test rig was placed on the test site, and the handle was moved in a
clockwise direction at the rate of 2 turns min1 giving a speed of
10 mm s1 to pull the tool carriage along with the cutting tool. As a
result, the tool penetrated into the soil and cut the soil into
different failure patterns.
2.4. Soil cutting procedure
The soil cutting test was performed at two consistency limits
(SMCpl, SMClq) and at the sticky point of soil (SMCsp), factorially
combined with three rake angles (15
, 30
and 45
) and three
operating depths (30 mm, 50 mm and 70 mm)(Aluko and Seig,
2000; Makanga et al., 1997; Wang, 1991). A at triangular shaped
tool (150 mm long 120 mm wide  4 mm thick; Fig. 4), was used
in both soil bin and eld experiments. In order to adjust the cutting
tool to different depths, two holes in each row, 20 mm apart, were
drilled about 20 mm from the top at the center of the cutting tool.
Videos were recorded to determine soil failure patterns using a

Fig. 5. Dry bulk density before and after different failure patterns in the soil bin and in the eld. (Error bars represent standard error (n = 4). Before test bars marked with an
asterisk (*) showed a signicant difference as compared to the corresponding after test value. Different failure patterns within the same soil type (soil bin or eld) with no
letter in common in the after test section had signicantly different impacts on the change in the soil properties).

162

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Fig. 6. Soil cohesion (no bar at zero soil cohesion) before and after different failure patterns in the soil bin and in the eld. (Error bars represent standard error (n = 4). Before
test bars marked with an asterisk (*) showed a signicant difference as compared to the corresponding after test value. Different failure patterns within the same soil type
(soil bin or eld) with no letter in common in the after test section had signicantly different impacts on the change in the soil properties).

digital camera (Canon Power Shot A4000 IS: 16 megapixels,

Canon Inc. China). The recorded videos were converted to
snapshots using a VLC media player (VLC, 2.0.2, Free Software
Foundation, Inc. USA). Soil failure patterns were then identied as
brittle failure when soil failed in the propagation of tensile
cracks (Aluko and Seig, 2000), chip-forming failure when soil
failed in the form of chips similar to the chips in metal cutting
(Rajaram and Erbach, 1996; Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988),
bending failure when soil was physically displaced with little
strains of elements in the vertical direction (Elijah and Weber,
1971), ow failure when soil failed in a similar way to bending,
but with no strains of elements (Elijah and Weber, 1971; Rajaram

and Erbach, 1996; Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988), and ow with

considerable bending failure when soil failed similar to ow
failure but with considerable bending and no strains of elements
(Tagar et al., 2014). Snapshots of soil failure patterns found in the
soil bin, eld and simulation were combined in joint gures. The
chip-forming failure, bending failure, ow failure and ow with
considerable bending failure patterns found in the soil bin tests
were compared with the corresponding failure patterns observed
in the eld as well as with the simulated corresponding failure
patterns. The soil structures produced after different failure
patterns were also investigated in order to study the tilth
condition of the soil.

Fig. 7. Internal friction angle before and after different failure patterns in the soil bin and in the eld. (Error bars represent standard error (n = 4). Before test bars marked
with an asterisk (*) showed a signicant difference as compared to the corresponding after test value. Different failure patterns within the same soil type (soil bin or eld)
with no letter in common in the after test section had signicantly different impacts on the change in the soil properties).

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

163

Fig. 8. Cone index before and after different failure patterns in the soil bin and in the eld. (Error bars represent standard error (n = 4). Before test bars marked with an
asterisk (*) showed a signicant difference as compared to the corresponding after test value. Different failure patterns within the same soil type (soil bin or eld) with no
letter in common in the after test section had signicantly different impacts on the change in the soil properties).

2.5. Soil physical and mechanical properties

Soil physical and mechanical properties may reveal quantitative
information regarding the structure of a soil after different failure
patterns. As outlined by a number of authors (e.g., Mamman and
Oni, 2005; Rajaram and Erbach, 1996, 1997, 1998), it is
indispensable to study the physical and mechanical properties
of soil after different failure patterns in order to better understand
the tilth condition of soil. To detect whether the structure of the

soil after chip-forming failure, bending failure, ow failure and

ow with considerable bending failure are suitable for good tilth
conditions, soil physical (rdwb) and mechanical (cohesion, internal
friction angle and cone index) properties were measured. To
measure the dry weight basis bulk density (rdwb) of the soil molds
in the soil bin as well as in the eld, undisturbed soil core samples
(50 mm diameter, 50 mm height) were collected at three different
locations from both the soil molds in the soil bin and the test sites
in the eld. The mean rdwb was then calculated using the

Fig. 9. Chip-forming failure pattern: (a) in the soil bin; (b) in the eld (without stubble conditions); (c) in the eld (with standing stubble conditions); (d) simulated chipforming failure pattern.

164

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Fig. 10. Bending failure pattern: (a) in the soil bin; (b) in the eld (without stubble conditions); (c) in the eld (with standing stubble conditions); (d) simulated chip-forming
failure pattern.

gravimetric method (Blake and Hartge, 1986). Soil textural class

was determined by the hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1927).
The soil plastic limit (SMCpl) was determined as the gravimetric
moisture content at which the soil just began to crumble as it was
rolled into a thread of 3 mm in diameter (Sowers, 1965). To
determine the soil liquid limit (SMClq), a 30
cone bearing a total
weight of about 80 g was mounted on a shaft and allowed to rest on
a cup (100 mL) full of soil for 5 s. The soil moisture content
corresponding to a penetration of 20 mm on the linear relationship
between soil moisture content (x-axis) and penetration (y-axis)
was considered as the liquid limit (Campbell, 2001). The sticky
point of soil (SMCsp) was measured as the point at which the soil
showed maximum stickiness/adhesion to the steel spatula (Baver,
1956). Organic carbon content (SOCwb) was determined using the
Walkley and Black (1934) method.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the
statistical software R (R Core Team, 2013) to evaluate the

signicance of the impact of different failure pattern treatments

on the magnitude of the change in soil physical and mechanical
properties (n = 4); differences between individual treatments were
compared through pair wise t-tests using the Holm adjustment
(p = 0.05). The signicances of the changes in soil properties before
and after specic tests, as well as the signicance of differences in
responses between soils, were analyzed through paired t-tests
(p = 0.05).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Soil physical and mechanical properties
The physical and mechanical properties of soil bin and eld
soils before and after different failure patterns are illustrated in
Figs. 58. The soil cone index was signicantly (p < 0.05) altered
after all forms of failure in both soil and eld conditions (with the
exception of ow failure in eld conditions). Soil bulk density was
only signicantly altered after chip-forming and ow failure, soil
cohesion was only affected by chip-forming and ow failure in soil

Fig. 11. Flow failure pattern: (a) in the soil bin; (b) in the eld; (c) simulated ow failure pattern.

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

165

Fig. 12. Flow with bending failure pattern: (a) in the soil bin; (b) in the eld; (c) simulated ow failure pattern.

bin conditions. On the other hand, the internal friction angle

was not signicantly altered in any of the tests. The rdwb after
(vs. before) chip-forming failure decreased from 1.4 to 1.32 Mg m3
in the soil bin and from 1.4 to 1.31 Mg m3in the eld. After
(vs. before) ow failure pattern rdwb decreased from 1.4 to
1.31 Mg m3 in the soil bin and from 1.4 to 1.33 Mg m3 in the
eld. However, changes in rdwb for bending and ow with
bending failure patterns were statistically non-signicant
(Fig. 5).
These results indicate that the rdwb after different failure
patterns was not conducive to good tilth. Generally, the growth of
roots is limited by increasing soil bulk density and excessive soil
resistance due to insufcient aeration or saturation by water

(Greacen and Sands, 1980), and Masle and Passioura (1987)

concluded that both high and low bulk densities can result in
reduced crop establishment. Higher soil bulk density can reduce
soil porosity, water holding capacity and root growth (Gebauer and
Martinkov, 2005). Tirado-Corbal and Slater (2010) concluded
that trees planted on sandy clay loam exhibited greatest dry root
weight at the bulk density of 1.2 Mg m3, while bulk densities in
the range of 1.42.2 Mg m3 can limit the growth of roots
(Patterson, 1977; Alberty et al., 1984; Randrup, 1998). An ideal
soil contains about 50% solid particles and 50% pore space by
volume (Hillel, 1982). As such, despite the decreases in bulk
densities observed, none of the treatments reached ideal bulk
density conditions.

Fig. 13. Chip-forming failure: (a) stress at 0.02 s, (b) stress at 0.06 s and (c) stress at 0.1 s.

166

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Soil cohesion slightly decreased between before and after chipforming failure, from 3.9 to 2.9 kPa in the soil bin and from 4.9 to
3.9 kPa in the eld. Soil cohesion increased slightly from 3.9 to
4.9 kPa in the soil bin after bending failure, but remained constant
at 4.9 kPa in the eld. Changes in soil cohesion after ow failure
were negligible (Fig. 6). Changes in the internal friction angle, on
the other hand, were statistically non-signicant after all tests
(Fig. 7).
The soil cone index decreased from 106 kPa to 34.78 kPa in the
soil bin and from 104 kPa to 31 kPa in the eld after chip-forming
failure, and, after bending failure, from 106 kPa to 40 kPa in the
soil bin and from 104 kPa to 38 kPa in the eld. However, after
ow failure pattern it decreased but slightly from 13 kPa to
8.22 kPa in the soil bin, while changes in the eld were not
signicant. In the case of ow with considerable bending failure,
the cone index also decreased signicantly, though to a lesser
extent: from 15 kPa to 6 kPa in the soil bin and from 13 kPa to
6 kPa in the eld (Fig. 8).
The change in cohesion and internal friction angle were nonsignicant (p > 0.05) in soil bin and eld tests for both chipforming and bending failure, remaining constant or decreasing
slightly after the former and increasing slightly after the latter. This
may have occurred because, in chip-forming failure, the operating
depth (30 mm) and rake angle (15
) were small, so that the soil
failed in the form of chips, while in bending failure the operating
depths (50 mm and 70 mm) and rake angles (30
and 45
) were
large, so that the soil did not fail but rather molded. This is
consistent with Keller and Dexter (2012), who mentioned that at
the plastic limit, each soil particle is surrounded by a lm of water
that causes them to slide over each other, so that the soil therefore
undergoes plastic deformation. However, those properties

decreased signicantly after ow failure and ow with considerable bending failure patterns in both soil bin and eld tests. This is
attributable that in ow failure and ow with considerable
bending failure patterns, all pores are lled by water and the soil is
capable of viscous ow (Keller and Dexter, 2012).
The soil cone index decreased signicantly after nearly all types
of soil failure patterns and conditions, potentially affecting soil
workability. Shaw et al. (1942) and Busscher et al. (1997)
concluded that soil moisture content is the dominant factor
determining cone index, with lower moisture levels leading to
increased cone indices, consistent with Henderson et al. (1988),
who concluded that the cone index increased exponentially with
the reductions in moisture content. According to Adeniran and
Babatunde (2010), the high moisture content weakens soil
molecular bonds, thereby decreasing the cohesive forces of the
soil particles. This leads to cultivation practices becoming difcult,
leading to high slippage, sinkage and smearing of machinery and
loss of trafcability.
For efcient soil cultivation with a SMC beyond the critical
value (23.72%), the soil needs to be drained before cultivation.
Utomo and Dexter (1981) concluded that at high SMC levels,
soils have relatively little strength and should not be considered
suitable for tillage. This is supported by Bourma (1969),
Kuipers (1982) and Keller and Dexter (2012) who concluded that
if tillage is performed when soils are too wet (above the plastic
limit), they lose their aggregate structure through the molding
processes, creating unfavorable soil conditions. This is consistent
with Dexter and Bird (2001) who concluded that when soil is tilled
at a SMC exceeding the SMCpl, the soil will deform plastically
and thus lose its structure. Consequently, a soil with good
workability usually has a SMCfc that is lower than its SMCpl

Fig. 14. Bending failure: (a) stress at 0.02 s, (b) stress at 0.06 s and (c) stress at 0.1 s.

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

(Barzegar et al., 2004; Keller and Dexter, 2012; Mller et al., 2003;
Ojeniyi and Dexter, 1979; Utomo and Dexter, 1981; Watts and
Dexter, 1998).
3.2. Comparison of simulated failure patterns with soil bin and the
eld
In the FEM simulation, the chip-forming failure pattern was
observed at a 30 mm operating depth and 15
rake angle, as
observed for both the soil bin and eld tests at the plastic limit
(Fig. 9ac), with the size of the chips being equal to the operating
width of the tine. In contrast, Rajaram (1987) and Rajaram and
Erbach (1996) observed this type of failure at an SMC of 28.6%
(slightly above the SMCpl). Bending failure was observed at 50 mm
and 70 mm depths of operation and 30
and 45
rake angles in the
simulation, which matched that of the soil bin; however, the
strains of elements seen with the soil bin were not present in the
simulated failure pattern, while bending was not found in the eld
(Fig. 10ac). This observation concurs with Elijah and Weber
(1971), who found bending failure with little strains of elements at
high moisture contents in a soil bin, but not in the eld. Similar
types of failure patterns were observed in the eld with standing
stubble conditions, but the failure patterns were found to be
affected by the standing stubble and roots in the eld (Figs. 9d and
10 d). The chip was 62 mm wide and 30 mm thick in the soil bin,
while in the eld the chip was 71 mm wide and 30 mm thick.
However, the bending failure was 106 mm wide and 53 mm thick in
the soil bin, while in the eld the bending failure was 112 mm wide
and 54 mm thick.
At the liquid limit, ow failure was observed at all operating
depths (30 mm, 50 mm and 70 mm) and rake angles (15
, 30
and
45
) in the simulation, which closely followed that in the soil bin or

167

eld (Fig. 11ac), although the roots of the stubble in the eld did
affect the soil ow failure pattern, giving it the appearance of chipforming failure. Such a ow-type failure pattern was also observed
by Wang (1991) at SMC levels of 44% and 52%, and by Rajaram and
Gee-Clough (1988) at 42% in Bangkok clay soils. In contrast, Wang
and Gee-Clough (1993) found brittle failure and shear failure
patterns at 44% moisture content. However, our study found that
ow failure is clearly related to the SMClq of the soil. Flow failure
was 43 mm wide and 32 mm thick in the soil bin, while in the eld
it was 57 mm wide and 30 mm thick.
At SMCsp, the ow with considerable bending as simulated for
50 mm and 70 mm operating depths and 30
and 45
rake angles
closely matched that seen in the soil bin and to a lesser extent that
seen in the eld (Fig. 12ac), where bending was slightly less than
that observed in the soil bin. This difference may be due to the fact
that, though the soil has a maximum stickiness at the sticky point
of soil, it has a greater support and a larger cross-sectional area in
the eld (as in the case of soil bin). The ow failure (Makanga et al.,
1996, 2010; Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988; Stafford, 1981; Wang,
1991) and bending failure patterns (Elijah and Weber, 1971) have
already been explored in the literature; however, ow failure with
considerable bending and no strains of elements at the sticky point
has not been reported earlier. In the soil bin, the ow with
considerable bending failure was 108 mm wide and 55 mm thick,
while in the eld the ow with bending failure was 105 mm wide
and 51 mm thick.
Figs. 1316 show that the minimum and maximum stresses in
chip-forming, bending, ow and ow with bending failure patterns
were highly variable with time, with maximum stresses of
1670 kPa at 0.02 s, 7150 kPa at 0.06 s and 7693 kPa at 0.1 s in the
ow with bending failure pattern, while the minimum stresses
were of 0.32 kPa at 0.02 s, 1.83 kPa at 0.06 s and 12.98 kPa at 0.1 s.

Fig. 15. Flow failure: (a) stress at 0.02 s, (b) stress at 0.06 s and (c) stress at 0.1 s.

168

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Fig. 16. Flow with bending failure: (a) stress at 0.02 s, (b) stress at 0.06 s and (c) stress at 0.1 s.

Thus, it is evident that the simulated chip-forming failure and

ow failure patterns correlated well with the failure patterns
found in the soil bin and in the eld, while bending failure and ow
with considerable bending failure correlated well with the soil bin
only, because bending failure is not observed under eld
conditions at the plastic limit (eld soil physical property tests
for bending failure were obtained from failure at the same
moisture content and rake angle and depth that caused bending
failure in the soil bin). It is anticipated that if at the SMCpl the
operating parameters of the tool are small (30 mm and 15
),
then a smaller portion of the tool (30 mm) will enter and cut a
lesser depth of soil in the form of chips without bending, because
the remaining soil, having a larger cross-sectional area with
respect to the operating parameters of tool, has more support.
Comparatively, at the same SMCpl, if the tool's operating
parameters are large (30 mm and 15
), a larger portion of the
tool enters the soil, the tip of the tool cuts the soil, and the
remaining part of the tool creates bending. However, in similar
eld conditions, though the operating parameters of the tool are
large, the bending is not created, because the soil has a greater
support and a larger cross-sectional area (resulting in chip-forming
failure). The strains of elements in the vertical direction were larger
and deeper in the eld, possibly due to the roots of the stubble.
However, slight bending was experienced at the SMCsp of the soil.
This is consistent with Gee-Clough et al. (1994), who conducted a
study to investigate the use of FEM to predict wet clay soil response
to a wide tine and concluded that the soil failure patterns were
similar to those observed in soil bin experiments. It is evident that
FEM provided good simulation of soil failure patterns; however,
soil failure patterns correlated better with those found in soil bin
tests as compared to the eld tests in the presence of standing

stubbles and their roots. This is consistent with Theuer (2011), who
stated that in real eld situations, a complex system of crop plants,
clods, roots, and mixed terrain (soil mixed with stones etc.) renders
the simulation more complicated, making it nearly impossible to
account for all of these inuencing factors. Karmakar and
Kushwaha (2006) also conrm the limitation of FEM for dynamic
effects in the simulation of soiltool interactions. It is suggested
that in future studies, other numerical methods (e.g., discrete
element method and computational uid dynamics) should also be
explored for the more accurate simulation of eld conditions.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the ability of FEM to simulate soil failure patterns
at the plastic and liquid limits of soil in both laboratory (soil bin)
and eld conditions was evaluated. In general, FEM provided
acceptable simulation of soil failure patterns; however, the
simulation results correlated better with soil failure patterns
found in soil bin tests as compared to the eld tests in the presence
of standing stubbles as well as their roots. This study has also
shown that there is a direct relationship between soil failure
patterns and the consistency limits of the soil both in the soil bin as
well as in the eld; however, bending failure was not properly
observed in the eld. Of the soil properties tested, only the soil
cone index was consistently changed by all types of soil failure
patterns; bulk density was only affected by chip and ow failure
and soil cohesion was only affected by chip and bending failure in
soil bin conditions, while the internal friction angle was not
affected by any failure pattern in either soil bin or eld conditions.
This study has also shown that the soil structures produced after

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

different failure patterns at the plastic and liquid limits of soils

were not conducive to good tilth.
It is suggested that future research investigate the sticky
consistency limit of soils, which occurs at lower moisture content
compared to plastic limit and liquid limit as well as sticky point of
soil, which may provide better soil physical conditions as
compared to plastic and liquid consistency limits. Further
investigation into the use of other numerical methods to accurately
simulate soil failure patterns found in the eld tests may also be of
future interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the National Science Foundation of
China (Grant Nos. 41371238; 51275250) and the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
(PAPD). Partial funding was also provided by an NSERC Discovery
Grant, as well as a CFI grant, held by Jan Adamowski.
References
Abo Al-Kheer, A., Aoues, Y., Eid M., El-Hami, A., 2011.Integrating optimization and
reliability tools into the design of agricultural machines. In: 20e Congres
FrancS ais de Me canique BesancS on, 29 aou t au 2 septembre 2011. AFM, Maison
de la Me canique, Courbevoie, France. (accessed 29.04.2013) http://documents.
irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/46919/cfm2011_327.pdf.
Abo Al-Kheer, A., Kharmanda, M.G., A. El Hami, A., Mouazen, A.M., 2011b. Estimating
the variability of tillage forces on a chisel plough shank by modeling the
variability of tillage system parameters. Comput. Electron. Agr. 78 (1), 6170.
Adeniran, K.A., Babatunde, O.O., 2010. Investigation of wetland soil properties
affecting optimum soil cultivation. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3 (1), 2326.
Alberty, C.A., Pellet, H.M., Taylor, D.H., 1984. Characterization of soil compaction at
construction sites and woody plant response. J. Environ. Hortic. 2, 4853.
Aluko, O.B., 2008. Finite element aided brittle fracture force estimation during twodimensional soil cutting. Int. Agrophys. 22, 515.
Aluko, O.B., Chandler, H.W., 2004. Characterization and modeling of brittle fracture
in two dimensional soil cutting. Biosys. Engng. 88 (3), 369381.
Aluko, O.B., Seig, D.A., 2000. An experimental investigation of the characteristics of
and conditions for brittle failure in two-dimensional soil cutting. Soil Till. Res.
57 (3), 143157.
Barnes, K.K., Bockhop, C.W., 1960. McLeod H E. Similitude studies of tillage
implement forces. Agric. Eng. 41 (1), 3237.
Barzegar, A.R., Hashemi, A.M., Herbert, S.J., Asoodar, M.A., 2004. Interactive effects of
tillage system and soil water content on aggregate size distribution for seedbed
preparation in Fluvisols in southwest Iran. Soil Till. Res. 78, 4552.
Baver, L.D., 1956. Soil Physics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, k.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of
Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 363376.
Bourma, J., 1969. Micro-structure and stability of two sandy loam soils with
different soil managements. Agricultural Research Report 724. Pudoc,
Wageningen.
Bouyoucos, G.J., 1927. The hydrometer as a new method for the mechanical analysis
of soils. Soil Sci. 23 (5), 343353.
Busscher, W.J., Bauer, P.J., Camp, C.R., Sojka, R.E., 1997. Correction of cone index for
soil water content differences in a coastal plain soil. Soil Till. Res. 43 (34), 205
217.
Campbell, D.J., 2001. Liquid and plastic limits. In: Smith, K.A., Mullins, C. (Eds.), Soil
and Environmental Analysis: Physical Methods. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
pp. 349376.
Chandler, H.W., 1984. The use of non-linear fracture mechanics to study the fracture
properties of soils. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 29 (4), 321327.
Chi, L., Kushwaha, R.L., 1987. Three-dimensional nite element analysis of soil
failure under a narrow tillage tool. ASAE Paper No. 88-1582. St. Joseph, MI, USA.
Chi, L., Kushwaha, R.L., 1989. Finite element analysis of forces on a plane soil cutting
blade. Can. Agric. Eng. 31, 135140.
Coetzee, C.J., Els, D.N.J., 2009. Calibration of granular material parameters for DEM
modelling and numerical verication by bladegranular material interaction. J.
Terramechanics 46, 1526.
Coleman, G.E., Perumpral, J.V., 1974. The nite element analysis of soil compaction.
Trans. ASAE 17, 856860.
Dexter, A., Bird, N.R.A., 2001. Methods for predicting the optimum and range of soil
water contents for tillage based on the water retention curve. Soil Till. Res. 57
(4), 203212.
Elijah, D.L., Weber, J.A., 1971. Soil failure and pressure patterns for at cutting blades.
Trans. ASAE 14 (4), 781785.
Gebauer, R., Martinkov, M., 2005. Effects of pressure on the root systems of Norway
spruce plants (Piceaabies [L.] Karst). J. Forest Sci. 51, 268275.

169

Gee-Clough, D., Wang, J., Kanok-Nukulchai, W., 1994. Deformation and failure in wet
clay soil: part 3, nite element analysis of cutting of wet clay by tines. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 58 (2), 121131.
Greacen, E.L., Sands, R., 1980. Compaction of forest soils: a review. Aust. J. Soil Res.
18, 163189.
Grote, K.H., Feldhusen, J., 2005. DubbelTaschenbuch fur den maschinenbau, 21st
ed. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
Hatibu, N., 1987. The mechanical behaviour of brittle agricultural soils. Ph.D. Thesis.
Department of Agricultural Engineering. University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Hemmat, A., Khorsandy, A., Shafaie, V., 2012. Soil failure mode in front of a multipletip horizontally operated penetrometer. Turk. J. Agric. For. 36 (2012), 476485.
Henderson, C., Levett, A., Lisle, D., 1988. The effects of soil water content and bulk
density on the compatibility and soil penetration resistance of some Western
Australian sandy soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 26 (2), 391400.
Hillel, D., 1982. Introduction to Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, USA.
Jafari, R., TavakoliHashjin, T., Minaee, S., Raoufat, M.H., 2006. Large deformation
modeling in soil?tillage tool interaction using advanced 3D nonlinear nite
element approach. In: AM, Madureira (Eds.), Proc. 6th WSEAS Int. Conf. on
Simulation, Modeling and Optimization, September 2224, 2006. World
Scientic and Engineering Academy and Society, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 246251.
Jayasuriya, H.P.W., Salokhe, V.M., 2001. A review of soil-tine models for a range of
soil conditions. J Agric. Eng. Res. 79 (1), 113.
Karmakar, S., Kushwaha, R., 2006. Dynamic modeling of soiltool interaction: an
overview from a uid ow perspective. J. Terramechanics 43, 411425.
Keller, T., Dexter, A.R., 2012. Plastic limits of agricultural soils as functions of soil
texture and organic matter content. Soil Res. 50 (1), 717.
Kuipers, H., 1982. Processes in soil physical degradation in mechanized agriculture.
In: Boels, C.D., Davies, B.D., Johnston, A.E. (Eds.), Soil Degradation. Galkema,
Rotterdam.
Lewis, B.A., 2004. Evaluation of LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147. Report No. FHWAHRT-04-094. Federal Highway Administration.
Li, M., Zhang, H., 2012. Hydrophobicity and carbonation treatment of earthen
monuments in humid weather condition. Sci. China Tech. Sci. 55 (8), 2313
2320.
Liu-Yan, HouZhi-Min 1985. Three dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis of
soil cutting by narrow blades. Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Dynamics, Auburn, AL, USA, 2,
322-337.
Liu, J., Chen, Y., Lobb, D.A., Kushwaha, R.L., 2007. Soil-straw-tillage tool interaction:
eld and soil bin study. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 49, 2.12.6.
Makanga, J.T., Salokhe, V.M., Gee-Clough, D., 1996. Effect of tine rake angle and
aspect ratio on soil failure patterns in dry loam soil. J. Terramechanics 33 (5),
233252.
Makanga, J.T., Salokhe, V.M., Gee-Clough, D., 1997. Effect of tine rake angle and
aspect ratio on soil reactions in dry loam soil. J. Terramechanics 34 (4), 235250.
Makanga, J.T., Salokhe, V.M., Gee-Clough, D., 2010. Deformation and force
characteristics caused by inclined tines in loam soil with moisture content
below liquid limit. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 12 (2), 181205.
Mamman, E., Oni K.C., 2005. Draught performance of range of model chisel
furrowers. CIGR Ejournal.PM 05 003. 7, 117. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/10474
(accessed 3.07.13.).
Masle, J., Passioura, J.B., 1987. The effect of soil strength on the growth of young
wheat plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 14, 643656.
McKyes, E., Desir, F.L., 1984. Prediction and eld measurement of tillage tool draft
forces and efciency in cohesive soils. Soil Till. Res. 4 (4), 459470.
Mller, L., Schindler, U., Fausey, N.R., Lal, R., 2003. Comparison of methods for
estimating maximum soil water content for optimum workability. Soil Till. Res.
72 (1), 920.
Ojeniyi, S.O., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Soil factors affecting the macrostructures produced
by tillage. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 22, 339343.
Patterson, J., 1977. Soil compaction-effects on urban vegetation. J. Arboric. 3, 161
167.
R Core Team, 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.
org/.
Rajaram, G., 1987. Force-time behavior of tine implements. M. Eng. Thesis No. AE
-87-14. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rajaram, G., 1990. Collapse failure in dry clay soils caused by tine implements. J.
Terramechanics 27 (2), 678.
Rajaram, G., Erbach, D.C., 1996. Soil failure by shear versus soil modication by
tillage: a review. J. Terramechanics 33 (6), 265272.
Rajaram, G., Erbach, D.C., 1997. Hysteresis in soil mechanical behavior. J.
Terramechanics 34 (4), 251259.
Rajaram, G., Erbach, D.C., 1998. Drying stress effect on mechanical behavior of a clayloam soil. Soil Till. Res. 49 (12), 147158.
Rajaram, G., Erbach, D.C., 1999. Effect of wetting and drying on soil physical
properties. J. Terramechanics 36 (1), 3949.
Rajaram, G., Gee-Clough, D., 1988. Forcedistance behavior of tine implements. J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 41 (2), 8198.
Randrup, T.B., 1998. Soil compaction on construction sites. In: Neely, D., Watson, G.
W. (Eds.), The landscape below ground II: Proceedings of an International
Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, IL, pp. 146153.
Raper, R.L., Erbach, D.C., 1990. Prediction of soil stresses using the nite element
method. Trans. ASAE 33 (3), 725730.

170

A.A. Tagar et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 145 (2015) 157170

Shahab Davoudi, Reza Alimardani, Alireza Keyhani, Reza Atarnejad, 2008. A two
dimensional nite element analysis of a plane tillage tool in soil using a nonlinear elasto-plastic model. Amer-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 3 (3), 498505.
Shaw, Haise, H.R., Farnsworth, R.B., 1942. Four years experience with a soil
penetrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 7, 4855.
Shmulevich, I., 2010. State of the art modeling of soiltillage interaction using
discrete element method. Soil Till. Res. 111, 4153.
Sowers, G.F., 1965. ConsistencyIn: Black, C.A., Evan, D.D., White, J.L., Ensimenger, L.E.,
Clark, F.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 1), Physical and Mineralogical
Properties, Including Statistics of Measurements and Sampling Agronomy
Monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 391399. . c31
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1.
Stafford, J.V., 1979a. The performance of a rigid tine in relation to soil properties and
speed. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 24 (1), 4156.
Stafford, J.V., 1979b. A versatile high-speed soil tank for studying soil and implement
interaction. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 24, 5766.
Stafford, J.V., 1981. An application of critical state soil mechanics. The performance
of rigid tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 26 (5), 387401.
Tagar, A.A., Ji Changing, Ding Qishuo, Jan Adamowski, Chandio, F.A., Mari, I.A., 2014.
Soil failure patterns and draft as inuenced by consistency limits: an evaluation
of the remolded soil cutting test. Soil Till. Res. 137, 5866.
Theuer, J., 2011. Finite element modelling of the interaction between exible tines
and soil for mechanical weeding. Thesis submitted in the partial fullment of

the requirements for the degree of MSc by Research. Craneld University.

https://dspace.lib.craneld.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/7307/1/Jan_Theuer_Thesis_2011.pdf.
Tirado-Corbal, R., Slater, B.K., 2010. Soil compaction effects on the establishment of
three tropical tree species. Arboric. Urb. Forest. 36 (4), 164170.
USDA, 1999. Soil Quality Test Kit Guide. USDA Soil Quality Institute, Washington, D.
C.
Utomo, W.H., Dexter, A.R., 1981. Effect of ageing on compression resistance and
water stability of soil aggregates disturbed by tillage. Soil Till. Res. 1, 127137.
Walkley, A., Black, I.A., 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for
determining organic carbon in soils: effect of variations in digestion conditions
and of inorganic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 63, 251263.
Wang, J., 1991. Stress-strain relationship in wet clay soil and some applications. AIT
D. Eng. Dissertation No. AE -91-1. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Wang, J., Gee-Clough, D., 1993. Deformation and failure in wet clay soil, Part 2: soil
bin experiments. J. Agric. Engg. Res. 54 (1), 5766.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1998. Soil friability: theory, measurement and the effects of
management and organic carbon content. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49, 7384.
Wegscheid, E.L., Myers, H.A., 1967. Soil bin instrumentation. Agric. Eng. 48 (8),
442445.
Yong, R.N., Hanna, A.W., 1977. Finite element analysis of plane soil cutting. J.
Terramechanics 14 (3), 103125.